SARJERAO APPASAHEB SHITOLE Vs. WEALTH TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are connected. One Sarjerao Appasaheb Shitole has filed both these petitions. He is the karta of his family. As karta of his family, he has been assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. In pursuance of the afore-mentioned assessments, two demand notices for the two assessment years mentioned above have been issued to him on October 24, 1962. In these petitions, he prays that this court may be pleased to call for the assessment proceedings in question and quash the demand notices issued to him by issuing writs of certiorari or such other writs or orders or directions as we deem fit.

(2.) SRI B.V. Krishnaswami Rao, the learned counsel for the assessee, in the course of his arguments, attacked the impugned notices on three different grounds. They ar :

(3.) DEALING with the first point, Sri B.V. Krishnaswami Rao, urged that entry 86 of List I of the Seventh Schedule must be read subject to entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule; if so read, it would be seen that Parliament cannot impose any tax on "lands and buildings" as that field is reserved for the State by entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. This question was considered by us in Krishna Rao L. Balekai v. Third Wealth-tax Officer, City Circle I, Bangalore, wherein myself, speaking for the Bench, observed that the "Act" is not ultra vires of the Central Legislature in so far as it relates to non-agricultural lands, as the same, for the purpose of Wealth-tax, falls within entry 86 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. In the present case, as in Balekai's case, assistance was tried to be taken from the decision of this court in D.H. Hazareth v. Gift-tax Officer. But the contention based on that case was rejected with these observation :